Ironically, we all owe a debt of gratitude to Rowan Williams, who as
Archbishop of Canterbury is chief prelate of the Church of England. Our
thanks are not due this cleric, however, for his appalling
pronouncement last week that we had better get used to the imposition
of Shariah law in Britain since it is now, in his words, "unavoidable."
we should be appreciative because, by his declaration of capitulation
to and appeasement of the Islamofascists — who agree with him on the
inevitability of the triumph of the brutally repressive totalitarian
theo-political-legal code they call Shariah — Archbishop Williams has,
albeit wholly unintentionally, sounded a needed alarm. In response,
British politicians of every stripe are suddenly professing concern
about the danger a courageous British author named Melanie Phillips
has, until now, been reviled for depicting as "Londonistan."
America is no less in need of such an epiphany. An appeals court in
Texas reportedly has just agreed that something called "Texas Islamic
Courts" can arbitrate Muslim divorce proceedings in that state.
Minnesota is allowing its cabdrivers to refuse transportation to people
they consider, under Shariah, to be "haram" or unclean — including
blind people with seeing-eye dogs and folks transporting alcohol.
Universities, other public institutions and even some private
corporations are acceding to demands by Shariah-adherent Muslims for
prayer facilities, ritual foot-baths and excused absences from work to
allow them, and those among their co-religionists they will pressure
for conform, to practice their faith.
Of course, practitioners of other faiths would never be afforded such accommodations. Were they even to ask
for equal treatment, Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc., would evoke a
firestorm of criticism from those guardians— both self-appointed and
official — of the U.S. Constitution's separation of church and state.
The latter, including it seems that storied defender of American
rights, the American Civil Liberties Union, not only tolerate that
cardinal principle's breach by Islamists in this country; they appear
supportive of it.
The creeping (some call it "Fabian")
imposition of Shariah in America and other freedom-loving nations is
not exclusively a product of the coercive effects of terror-backed
intimidation and what it evokes from the likes of Archbishop Williams
in the form of politically correct "sensitivity" and acts of
It is also the result of the money available to
avowed Islamists and their enablers in places like Saudi Arabia and
other Persian Gulf states. In fact, in his infamous speech in the Royal
Courts of Justice last week, the archbishop actually recommended "a
scheme in which individuals retain the liberty to choose the
jurisdiction under which they will seek to resolve certain carefully
specified matters. ... This may include aspects of marital law, the
regulation of financial transactions and authorized structures of
mediation and conflict resolution."
Whether movements of
these funds manifest themselves as U.S. acquisitions by Sovereign
Wealth Funds (which would be better described as "Dictators Slush
Funds") emanating from Islamist nations or as so-called
"Shariah-compliant finance," the effect, over time, will be truly
"unavoidable": investments in what the Islamofascists call "financial
jihad" — penetration and subversion of American and other Western
It is an ignominious fact that most of the money put to such insidious uses comes from us,
in the form of hundreds of billions of dollars we transfer abroad to
purchase oil. If we do not wish, inevitably, to be subjected to the
Islamists' Shariah on an ever-greater scale, we must recognize it is an
illegal political program, unconstitutional and seditious.
We also must do something meaningful and effective about what President Bush has rightly called "our addiction to oil."
there is a practical, near-term and low-cost way to begin dramatically
reducing our dependence on oil imported from places that wish us ill:
"fuel competition." This alternative to our present, near-exclusive
reliance on a commodity controlled by a cartel can be achieved by
creating an infrastructure that will permit our transportation sector
(where we use most of our imported oil and use it most profligately) to
use instead "Freedom Fuels" — namely, ethanol and methanol that we can
produce here at home or import cost-effectively from friendly countries.
can we obtain such an infrastructure? Simple: By adopting an Open Fuel
Standard that requires every new car sold in America to have not only
seat-belts and air bags but Flexible Fuel Vehicle (FFV) capability. An
FFV can use ethanol or methanol or gasoline (or some combination)
thanks to a chip and some plastic fittings in the fuel system. Today,
these cost a trivial $100 per car. When in three years time, 50 million
American cars have this feature (and another 50 million to 100 million
overseas), the marginal additional cost will probably be zero.
surprisingly, excitement is beginning to develop all over the country
as more and more Americans discover the technology is available, here
and now (there already are 6 million FFVs on our highways). They are
empowered by the opportunity FFVs present to do something real about
our vital transportation sector's strategically and economically
reckless reliance on oil. Best of all, this is not a big government
program deciding which of the various alcohol fuels from sources as
diverse as algae, kudzu, coal and trash will be "winners" or "losers."
Fuel competition means market forces, not bureaucrats, will decide.
the exception of a few vocal libertarians (whose opposition in this
instance to competition and market-based decision-making seems
inexplicable, not to say bizarre), the idea of fuel competition seems
to be one upon which we can all agree.
If we wish to avoid in
our own land the unsavory fate of enslaved nonbelievers ("dhimmis")
under Shariah, we had better hope the adoption of the Open Fuel
Standard is recognized as "unavoidable" — and soon.